OMG......I was floored by that question and was even more taken aback when so many answered "right along with her".
ANNDDDD she just got complimented on ANOTHER question.
Crazy the people who get suspedend for SO SO SO much less than using HUMANS as target practice.
Peace
2006-06-17 08:10:35
·
answer #1
·
answered by sqwirlsgirl 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
That's kind of the core of the problem here, is figuring out who's from where etc. The goal of globalization is 'open borders', to promote free trade etc(read free reign and open range for multinational corporations, you'll still pay retail for YOUR 'freedom'). I don't think one bullet needs to be fired in order to resolve the situation either, but I do think a well-patrolled and interest-conflict-free border enforcement concept has a great part to play in the future of both countries, Mexico, and the United States. Emphasis on 'conflict-free', because border enforcement, if carried out selectively, can become just another
tool for abuse.
Mexico needs reforms, reforms it won't undertake as long as the US is Mexico's 'easy out'. In other words, Mexico's a dollar-a-holic, and our country is acting as 'enablers'. The peso will always be worthless, until and unless they take up the cause of reform with both hands, and their hearts, and their own capacity for investment, and actually get out there and make good things happen FOR the mexican people, IN Mexico. People wouldn't be leaving Mexico if they had the social services and economy like what exists in america, but in order to get all that, you have to BUILD it. I think the US even still sends Mexico aid money toward that end, but I don't know what happens, and I doubt they could account for the money today if they tried. This is the problem. Either by tolerating illegal workers, or by sending billions TO Mexico each year, eithe way america's financing Mexico. Count the drug trade into the bargain, and you're probably into 11,12 figures annually, money on a one-way trip to Mexico, with little or no observable result toward progess or reforms. 100 billion dollars is a third of the new debt incurred by our government on behalf(or on the backs of) the american people each year through deficit spending. At some point, Mexico needs to become self-supporting, and that unfortunately may not happen until they get some external pressure to really work a lot harder on that. 'Free trade' doesn't mean 'live off the neighbors for all perpetuity'...and if they'd enforce the labor laws effectively, there wouldn't be 1/10th of the people in the US from Mexico, OR from anywhere else, to be fair about it, that there are today. That's what the whole immigration reform thing is about, reversing some of the trends that our politicians have been idly standing around and casually observing, but not doing anything about.
Change is good, for both America, AND Mexico! But, again, there's no shooting required, just a little more civic participation by both americans and mexicans in their home countries.
2006-06-17 14:18:04
·
answer #2
·
answered by gokart121 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Something drastic needs to be done about this Mexican problem. I can understand her frustration. They have ruined the small town here. I'm not sure about where she lives but we can always tell where they live. There are 20+ beaners in one house, all of their vehicles have tinted windows and have all of that Catholic stuff and almost always have a blanket over a window.
Now, many of them are being looked for finally by the law, but not for immigration reasons (God forbid) but for molesting children.
2006-06-17 16:33:02
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I don' think we have been shooting illegals. Just sending them home. And trying to keep them from killing themselves by traveling over the large desert. They often have to steal to support themselves while getting set up. Children suffer too while making this trip illegally to get to the cities.
2006-06-17 11:38:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
u just do
N ERR I would shoot,since im in the mood for killing
2006-06-17 11:35:33
·
answer #5
·
answered by and we all have loved before 2
·
0⤊
0⤋